SAN FRANCISCO — A YouTuber famous for the use of the expression "honey badger" in his videos won an appeal in a trademark case, overturning a previous summary judgment against his lawsuit suing greeting cards companies.
U.S. Appeals Judge Jay Bybee, on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued a 27-page ruling on Nov. 20, reversing the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's decision in the lawsuit, filed by Christopher Gordon against Drape Creative Inc. and Papyrus-Recycled Greetings Inc.
Gordon sued the companies on grounds of trademark violation for greeting cards using catchphrases that Gordon used in his YouTube videos.
"Gordon has trademarked the former phrase [honey badger] for various classes of goods, including greeting cards," the court document said.
Gordon started his YouTube career in January 2011, when, per the ruling, "under the name Randall, Gordon posted a video on YouTube titled 'The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger,' featuring National Geographic footage of a honey badger overlaid with Gordon’s narration. In the video, Gordon repeats variations of the phrases 'Honey Badger Don’t Care' and 'Honey Badger Don’t Give a S---,' as a honey badger hunts and eats its prey."
The video generated millions of views and became the subject of numerous pop culture references on television and social media.
Soon after the video went viral, Gordon started producing merchandise with the phrases and filed for trademark at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 2011.
However, the court ruling said, the trademark office had only registered the phrase "Honey badger don't care," and Gordon never actually registered the phrase "Honey Badger don't give a s---" for any class of goods.
In June 2015, Gordon filed the lawsuit, alleging that Drape Creative and Papyrus had committed trademark infringement, violating the Lanham Act. A summary judgment in favor of the defendants was granted right away.
In his ruling, Justice Bybee stated that "we cannot decide as a matter of law that defendants’ use of Gordon’s mark was not explicitly misleading," and a jury could deem it to be infringement.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case number 16-56715